Well, the midterm article was fun to write so I'm sorry it didn't meet the standards for providing information about developing online community. Surely an article that gives instructors real tools for getting their interactive website online will ultimately have more impact on community development in online classes than yet another article that rehashes the benefits of community building!
Online instructors already know that providing an interactive site benefits their students - what they need more than evidence supporting what they already know, is a guide on how to build that interactive site, so it seems pretty unfair to penalize me for providing concrete advice that could be useful to many online instructors rather than writing what has been written by others a dozen times before. 135 must be the lowest score in the class based on the average of 142.39, and yet the feedback from my classmates has been overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, several have contacted me for more information.
Technology is the basis for these online communities in the first place, so nothing could be more fundamental to building these communities than information about how to utilize technology to build online community. How can an article that is so useful in helping instructors develop online communities still be rated poor at providing information on 'online community'? It seems incongruent.
In any case, the article is done and I can move on to the next thing, the group project. We've worked out a solid timeline and I have great confidence in my teammates so I know that they will do whatever they have to to meet the group expectations, as will I.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mary, sorry that you are disappointed but glad that you are happy with your article. As you said many here benefited from your words.
Seems like your team is moving forward nicely - glad to hear that!
Datta Kaur
Post a Comment